[Discussion] Is Atheism Based on Faith?

[I m an Ass]

Because there is no proof that support it.

 

[Pragmatic]

Incoming rustled posts

 

[Mahesvara]

Uh yes there is, its called science and logic.

 

[The Necromancer]

Kinda. Honesly, everything is based on faith. Everything.

 

[Joker]

Wouldn't it be the absence of? Considering faith is more or less considered religion.

 

[YowYan]

Log off, sport.

 

[iKaras]

Because there is no proof that support it.

You must be registered for see images

Alright, Sure.

 

[Chibiusa]

Looooool dude I just died. Idk why but this was funny as hell.

But you have a point :|

I'll use the argument of one of my atheist friends: "Read world news. That's proof there's no god"

 

[I m an Ass]

Uh yes there is, its called science and logic.

Simply put, there is no affirmative argument in support of atheism. None.

The reasonable atheist -- and they exist in large numbers in the real world, though they are hunted to near extinction on the internet -- will admit that there is indeed evidence for God, though they conclude that it is not sufficient. The internet atheist, for the most part, simply says that there is NO EVIDENCE for God's existence, and refuses to address any arguments either in favor of God or in favor of atheism.

Atheist philosophers have tried for centuries to formulate such an argument, but none exists. The Problem of Evil argument and the Omnipotence Paradox are as close as they come, and these are both badly flawed arguments that have been around for centuries.


Sadly, as is often the case, Thumbs Down are a substitute for real, rational thought. All anyone needs to do to shut me up and prove me stupid is to simply provide one affirmative argument for God's non-existence

please people don't take this as an attack a just want a normal discussion

 

[AnimusOra]

Of course it is. Everything is based off of faith. If faith did not exist mankind would not challenge faith to begin with.

 

[The Whisper Of The Mist]

I'm atheist. It depends on the person and what they believe. If science is your forté then that is what you'll believe (Big Bang, evolution, such on.) I myself though don't really believe in anything without physical proof. I believe in the possibility of things but not them in themselves.

Does this help?

 

[I m an Ass]

I'm atheist. It depends on the person and what they believe. If science is your forté then that is what you'll believe (Big Bang, evolution, such on.) I myself though don't really believe in anything without physical proof. I believe in the possibility of things but not them in themselves.

Does this help?

yes thank for your honest replay

 

[The Necromancer]

I'm atheist. It depends on the person and what they believe. If science is your forté then that is what you'll believe (Big Bang, evolution, such on.) I myself though don't really believe in anything without physical proof. I believe in the possibility of things but not them in themselves.

Does this help?

That means you're agnostic, not athiest... U_U

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Hiya! I'm a scientist. Considering that Atheism is a philosophy based on a lack of faith, expressing Atheism by that definition should not have to come with faith.

simply provide one affirmative argument for God's non-existence

This is a problem. How can we disprove that which is not there?

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

Kinda. Honestly, everything is based on faith. Everything.

I wouldn't say everything, but yeah, pretty much.

Simply put, there is no affirmative argument in support of atheism. None.

The reasonable atheist -- and they exist in large numbers in the real world, though they are hunted to near extinction on the internet -- will admit that there is indeed evidence for God, though they conclude that it is not sufficient. The internet atheist, for the most part, simply says that there is NO EVIDENCE for God's existence, and refuses to address any arguments either in favor of God or in favor of atheism.

Atheist philosophers have tried for centuries to formulate such an argument, but none exists. The Problem of Evil argument and the Omnipotence Paradox are as close as they come, and these are both badly flawed arguments that have been around for centuries.


Sadly, as is often the case, Thumbs Down are a substitute for real, rational thought. All anyone needs to do to shut me up and prove me stupid is to simply provide one affirmative argument for God's non-existence

please people don't take this as an attack a just want a normal discussion

I agree with you. It takes faith to believe there is a God, just as it takes faith (most atheists call it rationale or logic) to believe there is not a God. And yeah, the Problem of Evil and Suffering is a question that, sadly, many Christians don't know the answer to, which is quite disheartening considering that it's a main tool for anti-theists. And the Omnipotence Paradox...I remember reading about that and chuckling. Good job reading up on your stuff.

 

[The Necromancer]

Hiya! I'm a scientist. Considering that Atheism is a philosophy based on a lack of faith, expressing Atheism by that definition should not have to come with faith.



This is a problem. How can we disprove that which is not there?

You can't prove a supreme being of creation doesn't exist, just as everyone else cannot prove it does exist, so what's the point?

 

[Callypigia]

You are assuming all atheists are non-religious. I am a pretty strict Buddhist and I don't believe in a god.

 

[Gerkak]

Almost all things are based on faith

 

[Ginn Uchiha]

Atheism is an excuse for people to live immorally. People who have no faith are people who choose to settle for a blank existence. Quite sad, really.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Atheism is an excuse for people to live immorally. People who have no faith are people who choose to settle for a blank existence. Quite sad, really.

Sorry buddy, Atheists have morals too. Sometimes we have more morals than religious folks, especially those who encourage immoral acts!